BREAKING… Lionsgate executives and reps around Gary Ross for weeks have expressed confidence that The Hunger Games director would helm the second installment of the book trilogy, Catching Fire. They expected the deal to go down right after Easter weekend. And they even went so far as to privately deny an Internet report that Ross had told the studio at the start of last week that he would not helm the sequel because he didn’t want to repeat himself. Instead, as a Lionsgate exec now tells me, “I am in shock.” Ross lobbied hard to get The Hunger Games and turned it into the biggest hit of his directing career. (Before that, he developed several serious historical dramatic projects under his deal at Universal that didn’t get off the ground.) Staying for a sure-fire hit and a sequel that audiences actually want to see made a lot of sense for Ross, particularly given how active he’d been already on Catching Fire. He and The Hunger Games trilogy author Suzanne Collins had been working on this sequel since last November. They drafted Slumdog Millionaire screenwriter Simon Beaufoy when The Hunger Games post-production schedule became too arduous for Ross to carry through with a plan to write the sequel outline and then pen the script with Collins. As for the notion that Ross would simply toss away the opportunity to direct Catching Fire because of a salary squabble, the logic seems flawed. The Seabiscuit director knows the benefit of riding a winner and not switching horses midstream. I understand the negotiations were handled by Lionsgate toppers Jon Feltheimer, Michael Burns, and movie chief Rob Friedman, newly arrived from Summit. That studio also changed up directors after its massive hit Twilight debuted — and the franchise not only wasn’t hurt but thrived at the box office. So let the speculation begin about Ross’s replacement. Here is the statement by Gary Ross just released by the studio:

Despite recent speculation in the media, and after difficult but sincere consideration, I have decided not to direct Catching Fire. As a writer and a director, I simply don’t have the time I need to write and prep the movie I would have wanted to make because of the fixed and tight production schedule.

I loved making The Hunger Games – it was the happiest experience of my professional life. Lionsgate was supportive of me in a manner that few directors ever experience in a franchise: they empowered me to make the film I wanted to make and backed the movie in a way that requires no explanation beyond the remarkable results. And contrary to what has been reported, negotiations with Lionsgate have not been problematic. They have also been very understanding of me through this difficult decision.

I also cannot say enough about the people I worked with: Producer Nina Jacobson, a great collaborator and a true friend; the brilliant Suzanne Collins, who entrusted us with her most amazing and important story; the gifted and remarkable Jennifer Lawrence whose performance exceeded my wildest expectations, and the rest of the incredible cast, whom I am proud to call my friends.

To the fans I want to say thank you for your support your faith, your enthusiasm and your trust. Hard as this may be to understand I am trying to keep that trust with you. Thank you all. It’s been a wonderful experience.

Here is Lionsgate’s statement:

We’re very sorry that Gary Ross has chosen not to direct Catching Fire. We were really looking forward to making the movie with him. He did an incredible job on the first film and we are grateful for his work. This will not be the end of our relationship, as we consider Ross to be part of the Lionsgate family and look forward to working with him in the future.

182 Comments

Crap!!! Now the second one’s gonna suck! Lionsgate should have just given him more time.

Sara • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

I know. This is what happens if studios set release dates before they even start working on a movie! All you end up with is a subpar film. Thanks Lionsgate.

Shannon • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Im so bummed. I was really looking forward to the next one :(

HGfanNumeroUno • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Ditto. Frowny Face.

FTCS • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Hollywood doesn’t make films. Hollywood makes release dates.

Gary, you chose wisely.

David C. • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

HOW DO YOU NOT TIE UP SOMEONE WHO JUST GAVE YOU A 600 MILLION DOLLAR HIT? Seriously, why wasnt he tied up beforehand?

John • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Lionsgate just failed Studio Exec. 101.

jer • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Wow, looks like Gary’s people are out in force. Yes, there is no other director in the world who can make Hunger Games 2. They should fold the entire thing right now.

Charlie • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The Bottom Line is always the wrong line. Kudos to Mr. Ross for showing some class.

mike • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Love the way you said that. I respect Gary so much for passing that up. Hunger Games is a shithole.

hgfreak • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

that comment is really mean! it was amazing

pontus • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

It’s not the release date of the movie, since Jennifer is gonna start shooting X-Men in January, Gary would have 4 months on prep everything for the movie and the script isn’t even done yet either. And i think that is why he is turning it down.

unlikely • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Not true,Simon Beaufoy handed in his first draft of the script a while back.

Laura • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Not necessarily… let’s see who they tap to direct before we jump to conclusions.

Jason G • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Lets hope so. Because Lionsgate just launched a 100 million dollar ship without a rudder.

Adam Taylor • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Curse you Lionsgate! The world can wait a few more months for a better film.

Actor In L.A. • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

LIONSGATE, JUST DO THE RIGHT THING AND GIVE THIS MAN THE TIME HE NEEDS TO PREP! And now, I’m going to throw up! Damn, why do studios screw up all the time when it comes to hit franchise movies. The first one is a smash, so then you hear people in the exec halls, “Strike it while it’s hot. People will forget if we don’t hurry up and get the second one out. Hey, we can cash in on merchandise sales quicker if we get this going.” Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Jeez the fan base isn’t going anywhere. The studio is just foaming at the mouth to try and make more revenue as fast as it can. Damn the quality of the product.

Eevengan • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

That’s why Avatar 2 will be amazing. Plenty of time to actually make a quality-driven movie.

Jen • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Just because there will be a different director doesn’t mean the movie will suck. Look at Twilight and New Moon. That first director sucked and when they got a new director for New Moon, it was a hundred times better and continue to be better! I read The Hunger Games and although the movie was OK, I was still disappointed. It could have been so much better and maybe now it will be with a new director!

blu • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The New Moon wasn’t better, and compared to the books they actually all sucked, the first movie (hunger games) was close to the book. The second movie will be worse if not followed like it should that i would agree with. hopefully the second movie will be made like the SECOND book.. we can only hope as fans.
Also since they have changed producers for oh 4 of the 5 movies for twilight saga the 2nd and 3rd were not good and i still to this day refuse to watch the last two, and yes i loved the story but the books into movies have been horrible since #2 it was not better than 1 and 3 was more about the life of bree tanner then the book eclipse at all.. have you even read the books and see that oh 400 pages out of the book weren’t in that movie!! Come on!!

SayNoToShakyCam • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Thank goodness. Maybe they’ll get a better director who will realize the importance of character development and relationships.

Handheld vs Dolly Parton • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Couldn’t agree with you MORE!!

USE A TRIPOD or A DOLLY or a CRANE!

This shaky-cam shit is lazy. How many handheld shots did you count in GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATOO? zero. Fincher is a true craftsman. A little shaky-cam can work depending on the intensity of the scene – but not practically every action scene…*

Thaaaaank you. The man thought he was directing The Bourne Freaking Supremacy.

tyler • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

That’s a bit of an unfair comparison. We all know the assignment was to deliver a PG-13 film about children who brutally murder each other. I hated the shaky cam, but he chose to use it early and often so that once the film shifts to the games themselves, the technique could mask some of the intensity of the violence to get the rating.

hgfreak • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

the camera was only shakey in tthe begining and the rest of the movie was amazing!

Livermore • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Oh wow, I couldn’t agree more. While the film as a whole was nicely done, there was nothing that another director with the backing of the studio couldn’t do (not ANY director, but certainly there are a dozen out there). Kudos to Lionsgate for not moving off the date, they have shareholders to account to.

Amarxlen • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Gary Ross chose to make some of the shots shaky because he wanted to portray the first person feel of Katniss’ point of view. An inner monologue through the whole movie would have detracted from the continuity and the emotion, but the shaky camera shots were a way to let you know how she was seeing things. I thought it was a very good way of letting us see into her head without doing any inner dialogue.

amyjanez • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

I concur, I feel that the “shaky” shots did add that first person feel to the movie, as that is what its meant convey. I think his version of the first book was very well thought out, and the decisions that he and Suzanne Collins made were as well. However, I cant see why people are making such a big deal about the decision he made about not continuing onto the next film. There are SO many talented directors out there, that honestly there is a good chance that the next director that comes on board could very well create things with Catching Fire that Mr Ross could have never come up with. People ought not to judge until an alternative director is hired.

Jen • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

I disagree! Apparently you didn’t read the book! Sure Katniss was scared but she was NOT shakey. She was very good at holding everything in and remaining calm. The shakey cam was the complete opposite of Katniss as well as made it uncomforable for the movie watchers. I hate when I have to motion-sickness while watching a movie!

hgfreak • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

i totally agree it must have been hard trying to turn a book written in the main charcters point of view into a movie and he did amazing!

Ali • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

I couldn’t agree with you more. He did a passable job but there were no relationships. The friendship Katniss had with Rue was heartbreaking in the book. It took place in 4 minutes in the film. Her time with Peeta showed his innate goodness and her feelings started to grow as she struggled with them. Yet, in the movie they ruined the bread scene and gave them a few seconds of a kiss with the other kids face popping up in the middle of it. There was no heart. The action was bland too.

DB • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

I enjoyed the film but the whole thing seemed a bit slip-shod, like Lionsgate spent just enough money to make it look respectable but not a penny more than that.

As for building relationships – that’s something that would have needed to be worked out in the screenplay – again, it seems like it was written very fast based on a list of bullet points from the novel.

One would have hoped that Lionsgate would have sunk a fraction of the millions that HG1 made into a longer development time for HG 2 so that it would have more of a chance to be better than just adequate, but oh well.

Ross was right that this material deserves more respect than Lionsgate is giving it, but then again I wonder if there are going to be a lot of other studios’ clamoring for his services despite all the money the first film made…

Patrick M. • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Raise your hand if you want a 15 hour movie that incorporates every detail from the book.

griz • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

My hand is raised.

Actor In L.A. • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

I don’t want a 15 hour movie incorporating every detail of the book. Therefore, I am not raising my hand. I think I get your point and agree. You can’t fit every single detail of the book into the movie. Therefore, the writer, director, etc. have to decide which cumulative details should be added to make the best movie/film possible.

Rich • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The shaky-cam was terrible. I don’t care to see a scene from a first-person perspective if that means I can’t see what’s actually happening. It made the action scenes totally incoherent and inconsistent with the rest of the movie. I thought the contrast between these and other scenes was jarring.

Worse still was the lack of character development. Relationships were unconvicing and the “bad kids” were comically evil.

However, Lenny Kravitz is awesome.

Peter • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The Hunger Games saga just went the way of John Carter.

Captain Obvious • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Or just hire the director of “Saw 12″ to pump out something cheap and quick. Either or.

Anonymous • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

YOU ARE SO RIGHT

npbart • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Agree. “The Hunger Games” was a huge letdown for me. The story was watered down. Character development was terrible. The slightest details being left out was ridiculous to me. District 11 dropping bread, Tributes all sitting on the same stage, a citywide march for the entrance, Haymitch drunk for more than one scene, Cinna’s larger part, the pin?!

xxaxx • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Not to mention Peeta never lost his leg … I thought that was a huge detail just completely overlooked … it was a major factor in the arena in catching fire.

Doesn't Matter • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

That’s silly. You can’t blame a director when that simply isn’t written into the script. It was in the book, but this is a different medium used to tell the same but different story. And to those who think that there is no other director fit for the job, you’re simply ignorant. Ross did wonderful work but you can’t count everyone out–or anyone out actually, especially since the directors themselves do not know how it will turn out going into it.

Yes, it’s unfortunate that such a talented artist will no longer be creating the next leg of the journey, but give him the respect he deserves for walking away and hope that the person he passes the torch to can light that shit UP.

Jedi77 • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The director is immaterial if he is not given proper time to develop the film!
Iron man 2 is a case in point. Favrou complained he did not have enough time, when the studio published the release date. No-one cared. And what did we get? A crappy sequel!

Go Ducks! • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

We NEED more directors standing up like this. I am sick and tired of studios fighting for arbitrary tight schedules just so they can hit a deadline release date. This isn’t real estate. Where you build isn’t as important as what you build. Lionsgate had a chance to create a cohesive, fantastic trilogy with an Oscar nominated director. Now we are just left with another shoddy product that can be sold at Hot Topic.

Actor In L.A. • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

LOL…the “Hot Topic” comment is funny….

Bradley T. • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The Spin Doctor!

Leave it to Gary to try and spin this one as “his” choice and not having enough time to prep. He got his take it or leave it offer and decided to walk… and you know what, it’s the best thing that could have happened to the franchise. Well done Lionsgate.

Mar • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Well said, Bradley. Not trying to be rude, but my first reaction is, “yay!” The film was really baaad. They can do so much better with a more skilled director (Cuaron, please!). The material deserves it, the great cast deserves it and so does the audience.

ed • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Agreed! Cuaron brought the Harry Potter series sophistication and real character development–I can only hope the studio nabs him to do the same for Catching Fire. I bet he wouldn’t use the horrendous shaky-cam for the fight sequences, either.

Mar • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Yes, he certainly did! That and Goblet by Newell blew me away. Azkaban will always be the favorite though. Stunning, masterful work in all ways. Cuaron left no stone left unturned.

mick • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Damn.

Joey John • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

LOLZ Lionsgate.

wildcat • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Silver parachute. SILVER PARACHUTE.

Jeff • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Not surprising, look at the guys track record, of course he isn’t making the next film with only four months time in between installments.

Money matters • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Too bad. I really thought these movies had potential. It’s going to be hard to find a good director with such a tight schedule.

Sheldon W. • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Lionsgate’s not the only one in shock – but by committing to such a short [relatively speaking] window for getting everything done, they really did it to themselves.

I have read the first 2 books. The second book is going to be a lot tougher to make into a hit movie. It is not impossible but it is just going to be much tougher. Ross thought that given the time available to him he could not do it so he stepped down.

griz • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

The second book with all its new characters and more back story has the potential to be amazing. The key, of course, is the writing and casting of the new characters that does them justice.

filmfan • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

good for him. how the hell do you write AND prep a huge action film in four months. no wonder he left.

Insteadofwriting • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Idiots!!!

You have a massive success whenever you release the movie. Make it good!! Ah, what a heartbreak.

Unless, of course, this is really all about money, in which case we don’t know the actual details of what truly went down.

Tripdout • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

SODERBERGH!!!

NotQuiteRight • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Good riddance. Lionsgate should have silver parachuted him a damn tripod and steadycan mount when he was filming the first one. Nothing like paying IMAX prices just to get sprayed as the kid next to me gets motion sickness and vomit up his 7 dollar small bag of popcorn.

DB • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

My impression is that the steadycam stuff was done as a money-saving device more than the ‘vision’ of the director, in which case the blame would be on the studio.

VT • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

He must really feel like he can’t make the film he wants to make in the time they’re giving him to walk away from this.

Good • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

he sucks anyways. i could have directed Hunger Games and it would have looked the same

Adam Taylor • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

False.

Johnny • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Not only is that a cliché, it’s a stupid cliché. No one who has ever said such a thing has ever contributed anything of substance to a conversation.

Dr. Who • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

For such an “esteemed” intellect, Gary’s opening comment doesn’t even make sense grammatically:

“Despite recent speculation in the media, and after difficult but sincere consideration, I have decided not to direct Catching Fire.”

This implies people were speculating that Gary was going to direct Catching Fire… but the opposite was true. He’s referring to people speculating that he was going to be fired — a very defensive first sentence for such a calculating director.

This guy is the epitome of a political animal and I know first hand EVERYONE found him extraordinarily difficult.

Good riddance. See ya in 11 years!

Amber • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

I’m not nearly as upset about losing Gary Ross as I am about what this means for the production of the movie overall. I don’t want to see a sub-par film and I don’t want the movie delayed 6-12 months. Jennifer Lawrence isn’t getting any younger and it stinks that her schedule is so tight. You’d think they’d have had the forethought to plan for this scheduling conflict ahead of time.

Rachael • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Agreed; I actually don’t mind a new director as long as they are good and as long as a QUALITY film can be made. This production schedule issue is what has me worried. And in terms of JL not getting any younger, what I’m more worried about is the actress who plays Prim … if she has totally gone through puberty and looks like an adult by the time of the next film (even though Catching Fire picks up not long after HG left off) then THAT will be weird. :-P

Jordan • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Such a shame they are letting him walk.

Mr. Pleasantville • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Best thing that could happen to the series. His direction was stale, flat, and highly unimaginative. Like Twilight, the director is a work for hire situation on these behemoths.

Tulse Luper • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Mr. Pleasantville is 100% correct. The idea that the “franchise is doomed” because Gary Friggin’ Marshall isn’t directing the sequel is ludicrous. It grossed $600M therefore they could have the receptionist direct the sequel and it would gross $750M.

(And yes, I know Gary Ross directed “Hunger Games”. But Gary Marshall circa “Exit to Eden” and “The Other Sister” would be fucking inspired for “Hunger Games 2″)

Rachael • on Apr 10, 2012 7:03 pm

Umm yeah and we see how well that worked out for Twilight. Harry Potter probably would have been a better example to use, since most of those films are decent (and a few of them are very good). Granted, the source material makes a big difference too, but still.